Restored
-
Posts
2,874 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Restored
-
-
Regular- Jason's responses
Blue-My response
You're right, it doesn't make any sense and that's not what I said. I'm at a loss as to what that even means and even more of a loss in how you got that from my post.
No, thats exactly what you said.
This is what you stated: your suggestion is to use the #1 pick on Luck (who will ride the bench if Manning is healthy and you're fine with that...I disagree but also admit this is merely a matter of opinion) and use the #1 picks in rounds 2-7 to draft help for Manning. What Ramblin said is if we draft Luck and use the rest of the picks, then one could say we're picking at the end of each round (the #1 pick in round 2 only being one pick behind #32 in round 1) so the 2012 draft would be no different than the past several drafts we've had in that we've been picking at the end of the rounds...
Wrong. While this idea holds true for rounds 1 and 2 because we would be using the pick in round one for Luck, it doesn't apply to the rest of the rounds because rounds 2-7, we would be picking #1 in those rounds ahead of everyone else. Where as in past we would be picking at the end of rounds 2-7 instead of the start like this year.
Yes, thank you Captain Obvious.
Welcome Sir Oblivious
No this is not my logic, this is your grossly inaccurate understanding of my logic. I clearly said that picking #33 (this being the first pick in round 2) is only one pick behind #32 (the last pick in round 1)...in other words, the first pick of Round 2 is just behind the last pick in Round 1. So picking at the top of the Round 2 is not far off from picking at the end of the Round 1.
This is true but also true is that #33 is #1 in round 2. Whereas before if things were the same as you both seem to think they would be, we would be picking #60-64 in round 2 instead of #1 like we will this year. So no, they aren't the same as years past drafts.
You don't have to BREAK anything to me (brakes are in a car ;) ). It's very easy to see that picking at #33 and picking at #64 are clearly different. I have no idea how you logically concluded that I thought they would be the same based on my post. I find it funny that you sit on your high horse telling people to "stop posting' and "do your research" when you clearly lack the reading and comprehensive skills that most 6th graders have.
You clearly didn't even understand the point you were trying to defend. You obviously failed 3rd grade english. Just stop.
Again, why would a team trade their 2nd round pick for our 3rd round pick without any other compensation? You clearly understand that choosing at the end of a round is better than choosing at the beginning of that same round, but picking in round 2 is also clearly better than picking in round 3. Perhaps it is you who should do YOUR research. No team is going to give up their 2nd round pick no matter what # it is in the round for a 3rd round pick unless we offer additional compensation as well. We would have to likely give another lower round pick in rounds 4-6 along with the 3rd round pick OR a higher pick in the 2013 draft in order to move up from the top spot in round 3 to somewhere in the middle of round 2. You're suggesting that a team would give us their 2nd round pick for our 3rd round pick simply because our pick in the 3rd round is higher than their pick in the 2nd round and that's just plain stupid. Now if you simply forgot to add that we would have to pay them additional compensation along with the 3rd round pick then that would make more sense but you didn't say anything in that regard. So again I repeat, no team is going to trade us their 2nd round pick for our 3rd round pick without additional compensation on our end.
I don't think it would soley be just the 3rd rounder for the 2nd because theres a lot of variances that will play out on draft day. A team may really see a player they want that could fall to the 3rd so they wouldn't have a problem trading away their 2nd rounder to us for some conditionary picks. My point here is that everyone seems to think we can only get value for the #1 pick in round 1 when the other rounds show value as well.
-
Start reading posts please.
But since you (Adam) can't or won't read posts let me translate. He's not talking about all subsequent drafts after 2012. He's talking about the 2012 draft alone. In the 2012 draft, your suggestion is to use the #1 pick on Luck (who will ride the bench if Manning is healthy and you're fine with that...I disagree but also admit this is merely a matter of opinion) and use the #1 picks in rounds 2-7 to draft help for Manning. What Ramblin said is if we draft Luck and use the rest of the picks, then one could say we're picking at the end of each round (the #1 pick in round 2 only being one pick behind #32 in round 1) so the 2012 draft would be no different than the past several drafts we've had in that we've been picking at the end of the rounds...the difference being of course we would get Luck but some people want him and some people don't so for those who don't want him, getting him isn't much of a selling point. You (Adam) said that if we draft Luck then starting in 2013 (with Manning back) then we go back to drafting at the end of the rounds instead of the beginning. This is most likely true. That is not the same thing that Ramblin is saying. I admit, Ramblin worded the post I quoted somewhat awkwardly but he wasn't saying the same thing you said. Though to be fair, your post #15 was also worded a bit awkwardly. You talk about trading down when I think you mean trading up but not totally sure. And how are we going to trade a 3rd round pick for a 2nd?
So picking at the start of the 2nd and 3rd is essentially picking at the end?? LOL. No that makes no sense. THEY ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE ROUNDS. You are picking at the top of each round meaning that you have the pick AHEAD OF EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THAT ROUND TO START. In your logic you are saying picking #33 is the same as picking #60-64 which is where we have been drafting before. #33 and #60-64 aren't the same, hate to brake it to you. You aren't picking at the end of the 1st round if you have the #1 pick in the 1st round. Rounds 2-6 you pick #1 as well meaning you pick ahead of everyone else in that round. Do your research.
You really need to do your draft research. Picking at the top of the 2nd is better than choosing at the end of it. This idea goes across the board. The order stays consistent throughout the whole process unless trades are made. And my point with the 3rd round pick is that its a HIGHER ORDER pick meaning that we are picking #1 in that round. So my point is that a team who's picking in the middle of the 2nd would trade so they could a relatively high pick in the next round while we get their second round choice ontop of what we already have.
to be honest I think there was a disconnect between you 2 from the start.
-
What does this statement even mean? Don't post and drink at the same time please. Or just stop posting as you seem to think is a good response.
It means that you are stating we would be picking at the bottom of the draft rounds with Luck because we would be finishing with a good record each year like we have been with Peyton.
Finishing with a good record in the seasons we would have with Luck isn't a bad thing. Stop posting.
-
Gonzo, Brackett, Painter, Addai, Link, Hughes, Lacey, Clark, Moala.
All coaches. Period. Overhaul time.
This!
I also find it interesting that you put Dallas on there. Lot of people wouldn't even consider that.but after this year he's kinda in the same category as Brackett. Great player and will always be a Colt but the cost outweighs the production at this point.
-
That opposite statement is even stupid. Hey guys! We can draft Andrew Luck and it will be just like old times where we pick at the end of each round! Except for the fact that that is not true.
Balzer40 please think before you type so that I don't have to respond to statements like this.
We would be picking at the end of each round with Luck because we would be having winning seasons? What is wrong with that? Stop posting please.
-
Theres a lot of interesting points in here but concerning the #1 pick I think you have to take Luck and bring him up under Peyton the next 2-3 years. Look, everyone is saying trade the pick and get more picks so we can get one with Peyton. But we can do that already this year. We are going to be (pending any trades) picking #1 in every round after we take Luck. I'd trade that 3rd rounder for example and get an extra second and get that WR and that SS we need all in the same round.
If we do the trade for more picks, what do people think we are gonna do after Peyton? If we get the picks and finish well for the remaining years we have with Peyton, we won't be picking inside the top 25 like we have been accustomed to around here with finishing 10-6+ each year. Meaning that to find that next franchise QB we more than likely would have to make a big trade and move down. The Jets have done this in a similar fashion with trading down to get Mark Sanchez. Look at where they are sitting at this year.. Now we can all blame their non-success this year on a lot of different factors but Sanchez isn't doing much to help his cause either. My point: Take Luck, secure the team of what you believe to be another franchise QB for the long-term while being able to support Peyton with some new pieces in this years draft.
-
USC has Matt Kalil, Stanford has 2 OL going in the top 20 this next draft. I think its safe to say that currently, Stanford has the edge there.
By one player.. Meanwhile Barkley is throwing to 3 extremly talented recievers and has a defense that doesn't get 40+ points dropped on them at home like Luck's does.
-
Agreed...the media is drumming this up. They want to see the Colts lose Manning. They would like nothing better than to get him out of Indianapolis and into a bigger market. So they keep trying to create and stir up controversy where it otherwise does not exist.
Nothing said by Polian, Irsay or Manning would lead anyone to believe that the Colts are not perfectly happy with having Peyton and his future successor co-exist for a few seasons if possible. On the contrary, there have been several statements made by them in support of the idea.
This is the same media that has been trying to tell us our window is slammed shut for the past three years we have made the playoffs. They want to nail it shut now by trying to convince us that our team can't keep Manning and draft a future franchise guy in the 1st round. I'm not buying it until I hear it coming from one of our guys.
If Peyton is healthy we will find a way to compete next year and if we take Luck we will be setting the stage to potentially sustain this post-Manning. The window may have an ugly crack in it right now but it isn't closed just yet.
QFT!
-
thats true...its also true that Luck has a way better OL, and massive TE that are missmatches to any D. no one seems to have an answer for them.
actually it looks like PM vs TB of late lol... pm had the better WR and TB had the better OL.
I wouldn't say way better OL. USC has put out some decent OL players over the years. True TE's are mismatches but they can only stretch the field so far compared to WR's.
-
USC and Stanford plays against mostly the same teams and Barkley has out played him against any of the tougher defenses.
..With better WR's and a better defense.
-
Learning behind Manning doesn't mean anything, especially if it's not a style Luck is accustomed to. Rodgers received no help from Favre, for example, but had a great team in place when he stepped in. If learning behind Manning were relevant, Painter would be solid.
As stated by a previous poster, Luck has displayed the ablity to adapt to different systems over past few seasons. Last year he had bigger and more talented WR's to throw to which is when people really started to see his talent. This year due to WR's getting hurted and drafted last year, he has had to adapt to using more TE's in the passing game such as what New England is doing this year. His completetion percentage has stayed relatively the same along with his TD:INT ratio increasing. You also are trying to compare Curtis Painter who was drafted in the later rounds to a possible #1 overall pick. It's like trying to compare chocolate and sour gummy worms and asking which one tastes sweeter.
Also, why would he always get better? People frequently say this about athletes, but 99% of the time, it doesn't happen. They actually tend to drop off after a good rookie campaign as opponents have more film and experience to work with. More often than not, a player will plateau.
So 99% of the time, athletes don't get better? lol please stop.
The USC triple-OT game had the opposite effect on me. He almost blew that game, and was literally saved by USC fumbles. Beating Notre Dame is also commonplace anymore. Had his team not rushed for 200 yards, he wouldn't have done anything. Luck was also relatively awful against Oregon and Cal, two TERRIBLE defenses.
Almost blew that game? He did throw that pick 6 but did you see the following drive and the drives in OT? Quit making excuses for USC losing. You do realize that USC team beat Oregon yet Standford beat USC. Divisional games are schewed in college FB. Playing college divisonal opponents can scew stats. Look at the NFL for instance. Rodgers can play Detriot one week and not have a statstically good game yet play the Seahawks the next and have an amazing game. The same idea applies to college football.
He has 2, 1st round NFL linemen, at least 2 NFL TE's, and a ridiculous ground game. He plays against the softest defenses among the BCS conferences. Yet he still doesn't display NFL qualities, outside of calling plays at the line. The more I watch him, the more "ehh..." I feel, and I've seen more than 20 of his performances.
I agree about the lineman being good. but those TE's are big but only one of them is of NFL caliaber, not to mention one of them was out of the lineup for awhile (not sure on his name). Also that TE's are not meant to be the main staple in a verticle passing attacks. Theres these players called Wide Recievers that run down the field and catch the ball. Not sure if you've heard of them. I've followed him since his redshirt freshman year and I have seen ample NFL quality work from him.
You went into your 4-5 viewings hoping to see greatness, so you saw what you wanted to see. The facts show something else: he's a solid college QB.
Same can be applied to you. You expected to see elite greatness on every throw and sub sequentially didn't see it so you don't think he is elite.
Nobody was sold on Rodgers.
Everybody was sold on Leaf (except Indianapolis, and even they had doubts about Manning).
No one was sold on Newton.
Everyone expected Reggie Bush to light up the league.
^These 4 statements are highly opinionated and don't present objective thinking because I can assure you people WERE sold on Rodgers, Manning, and Newton. People also said that Reggie Bush wouldn't have success in the league because he bounces out to the outside too much and doesn't run between the tackles. Which ironically has been his biggest issue.
Suh also turned out to be a dirty * on the field who will likely spend half of his games paying fines instead of contributing.
In other words, what the people expect virtually never pans out. It's impossible to predict how a college player will fare at the next level.
Peyton has proven he can take a junk yard to the Super Bowl. Luck hasn't won anything relevant in college. He's not the future. He's a college QB who may be an NFL QB some day.
Okay and did Peyton ever win anything relevant in college? Don't comeback with the "Well he played in the SEC" arguement. Answer the question as stated and get back to me.
-
Do you really want to play the "lack of talent" card considering you know who my favorite college QB is?
lolYes, Stanford does lack a speedy WR to stretch the field, but the TEs are just as capable at spreading the field due to their speed, height and pass catching ability.
LOL I love you say TE's can stretch the field like WR's. If thats the case, why don't we all just draft and play with TE's instead of WR's and line them up on the outside like recievers because they are just as capable right? New England is attempting to do that with MODERATE success. They have no deep recieving game in the same way that Stanford doesn't, primarily because of injuries at the reciever position.
Also, having possession receivers imo is a better indicator of a QBs ability because with possession receivers you have to throw timing routes with accuracy, timing and velocity. These are the types of throws I rarely see from Luck. Notice I didn't say never, but rarely. More often than not, they are able to establish their power running game and then he throws off playaction to WRs or TEs who are wide open. Easy passes to complete more often than not.
Your missing a huge point in that with possession recievers they have to get OPEN which they normally don't do because they are just merely pass catchers and aren't known for being explosive threats. I don't know what games you watch but I've seen plenty of time throws and routes from Luck. Watch the 2nd half of that Cal game from last week in paticular and you will see Luck makes some good timing throws WHILE under pressure.
A couple of games back, the announcers were talking about how they talked with the Stanford coaching staff, who had just analyzed every throw that Luck has made over the course of the year. At that time, Luck was completing 97% of his passes off of play action. That is an incredible number in and of itself. However, his overall completion percentage for the year is at around 73%, so how low is his accuracy on straight up drop backs that the overall % comes down from 97 to 73? I could take the easy approach and say it would have to hover somewhere around 50% but I know that's likely not accurate because that would be assuming that Luck makes the same number of throws off play action that he does on straight drop backs and I'm sure that's not the case.
Why does it seem like your trying to discredit play-action as a viable passing means? Yes the running game helps but the QB still has to make the read and the throw. A 73% completion rate is stellar, regardless if its off play-action or not.
However, I do believe Luck's accuracy is overrated. That 97% completion percentage off playaction is more often than not to absolutely wide open receivers and even those throws are not always accurate, but because the receiver is so open he's able to adjust to the ball. Yes, for his college career, Luck is completing a very high percentage of his passes, but if you have WRs and TEs who can adjust to a poorly thrown ball, then the pass will still be completed. I can't give the QB credit for that any more than I would give blame to the QB for an incompleted pass if the pass was thrown accurately but was just dropped by the receiver.
The reciever isn't wide the frick open on every play-action pass. Sometimes defenders just flat out don't bite on the fake. So unless you've watched and analyzed every play-action pass Luck has ever thrown, which im sure you haven't, your point is invalid and has no merit.
The timing throws are the ones Luck has been struggling with lately....well imo all year to some extent but it's shown up more lately because their running game has been kept more in check so those wide open play action passes haven't been there the past couple of weeks like they were through the rest of the season. Luck is more often than not very accurate on slants and crossing routes, but his comeback and out routes are more often than not thrown high. And even with the accuracy on the crossing routes, Luck doesn't always have the ability to throw the ball with enough velocity to get the pass there quickly enough. In college that's not as big of a problem but in the NFL, many of those throws could wind up deflected or intercepted.
Comeback and out routes do indeed have to do with timing but when you are playing with WR's who are out of position due to injuries at the position, timing will be a little off. And thats across the board, from college to the pros. Look at Peyton last year. When he was playing with backup recievers and TE's his timing was off and it looked very much like Peyton was just flat out inaccurate and missing throws sometimes. Even though it more or less had to do with the fact that they haven't had the time and practice together to develop the timing needed.
I know people are going to throw out the "well Manning's arm strength was a question coming out of college too" and to that I can only say that I never watched Manning play in college so I don't know how his arm strength would have compared to Lucks. I do believe though his arm strength is above average at best. Can it improve? Perhaps with the right strength and conditioning he can improve his arm strength somewhat but there's no way to know that it will improve enough that those types of throws will be able to be made with better velocity to fit them into the tight coverage windows he's going to face in the NFL.
So you already are admitting that you "never really watched Manning play in college" so how can you make a valid comparison point? Luck has made plenty of tight coverage throws and some of them on the run I might add. I seriously think you just watched highlights of the Oregon-Standford game in your assesments.
As far as playcalling goes and being an offensive coordinator on the field, based on all that is said about Luck, yes I will give you that he is advanced beyond his years in this regard. However, imo this is more a luxury than a need for a QB. A QB NEEDS to be able to read coverage and make appropriate checks at the LOS. He needs to be able to audible when necessary. He does not need to be able to call every play for the offense throughout the course of the game..that's typically the OCs job. Now if we don't replace Christiansen then we may need our QB to continue being the OC on the field. However, if we can bring in a competent OC then a QB who can call his own plays no longer becomes a need. It would be a nice luxury to have but if the QB shows signs of struggling physically with being able to make every NFL type throw and pick apart zone coverage then having that luxury doesn't mean as much.
Are you serious? That's the point everyone makes is that he makes the proper reads and audibles at the LOS and gets his offense into the right plays. I don't know why you somehow think they are different factors.
-
You do know we didn't go one and done under Dungy in 2003 and 2004 too right? We just didn't win the Super Bowl those years.
Didn't you know? People consider one and done any year you don't win the Super Bowl. As of right now the NY Jets are on like a 50 year one and done streak!
/internet sarcasm
-
1. Aaron Rodgers is a football player, and has very little knowledge or sway as far as constructing a team goes.
Well he's been in a similiar situation that Luck will more or likely will go through come draft time so its interesting to see his input. Don't overread it lol.
2. Aaron Rodgers wasn't NFL ready. Luck (supposedly) is. That's why sitting made sense to him. Not to mention the fact that he was picked 23 spots lower, and didn't cost the team any money.
While this is true in a sense, as I discussed with Jason, NO QB is ever fully-NFL ready. ie. Peyton progressing over years 2 and 3 compared to year 1. Also the notion with Rodgers was that he either would of gone #1 with Alex Smith falling off or vice-versa. It just so happen that Smith was taken and Rodgers was the one who fell off. It easily could of gone the other way.
3. This is nothing more than a player stating his opinion, so all of those people who think we HAVE to take Luck can forget about it providing some measure of validation.
I don't think its the all telling mantra but it does shed some light on the situation from a player who has gone through a similar situation because regardless of how you look at it, if we take Luck and Manning is still with the team, Luck will in all likelyhood sit. For how long though remains to be seen.
4. Notice he said, "if he will sit," not that he should. Luck may not want to sit. We shouldn't want to hold a guy ransom, while also hurting our team, just to hope that we don't see a drop-off after Manning in four years.
Okay and maybe he wouldn't mind sitting. It's not holding him ransom but you can view it how you want. Don't see how it hurts the team either in having your future franchise QB waiting in the wings. Afterall it does take about 2-3 years to fully grasph this offense which is about the amount of time people expect Peyton to have left.
Finally, Rodgers isn't the best QB in the game today, he's just playing great with the best team in football today.
Oh really? Yet he leads the league in pro bowl voting this year and is on a record setting pace with QB rating. He is playing lightsout. Tell me who is playing better right now please.
Peyton Manning has stated that Luck would be best suited playing right away. Whom do you trust? Aaron Rodgers, or Peyton Manning? Who's had the better career thus far? Who is the better all-time QB? Who is more intelligent on the field? Who does more with less? You are Colts fans, so choose your answer wisely.
..Because he has the ablitiy to play right away? It doesn't mean he thinks he should come in and start right away because it would be detrimental if he didn't. It just means he thinks he hast the ablity to come in and play right away.
Also since you like reading into things so deeply. What about Peyton saying to Luck he should wait another year and come out this coming year in the draft? Does that mean that the colts threw this year to get him? Does that mean Peyton wants the Colts to draft Luck so they can teach him? You seem like a well-knowledged fan so choose your answers wisely
-
The underlined part was my point. No matter how much you practice, you can't prepare a QB for being in an actual game without putting him in the actual game. Of course you still practice, to not do so would be stupid. But no QB is going to truly get a feel for NFL game speed without actually being in the game.
I agree you can't simulate gamespeed but that doesn't make you any worse or more of a QB when it does come time for said player to step in and play. All you can hope for is that practice and preparation and conditioning has gotten you into a position to be able to succeed.
To the underlined part, you did not clearly communicate that in your post. I'm not a mind reader. I can only respond to what you type. lrn2communicate. Your exact quote was
Well you obviously knew they were bowl eligible next year as I did so I expected it to be common knowledge between the both of us.
I addressed the part in blue when I said that I didn't see there not being 3 or more teams in the top 10, likely the top 5, so unless it just happens to wind up that the QB needy teams don't wind up picking early then I don't see any way Barkley falls into the teens.
The part in green was simply worded poorly imo. You said they can't compete for a championship and in the same sentence you reference him going #1 next year. I can only infer from that you were also referring to next year when you said they couldn't compete for a championship. Regardless, it was a miscommunication.
To the part in purple, since the previous sentence was a miscommunication, it sounded like you were saying that Barkley would wait another year to move from #2 to #1.
Here, we simply disagree and also I don't think the drafts have been as bad as people make them out to be but that's another topic for another thread. In regards to Luck sitting....well Rodgers says he'd be better off sitting and Peyton says he'd be better off playing right away. As I said before, there are pro's and con's to each scenario so we'll just have to wait and see what Luck thinks is best for him. This is also all assuming that, by the end of the year and after the combine/interviews/private workouts, that the Colts grade Luck as the best QB in the draft. I wouldn't be surprised if that's not the case.
No need to really address your other points since they aren't really arguement points.
-
- Cower isn't interested in coming back to coaching this year and certainly wouldn't come here.
- Jeff Fisher is a good possible option as well
-
Who would rather see the team fail? Get off yer high horse, you are talking nonesense. You just make something up, throw it out there......
You look to be whining, actually....
Um no. If you actually have half a brain which you apparently don't since your talking like the ignorant "yer" ye haw fanbase we have here you'd understand that most "fans" of this team only stick around when they win and subsequentially talk crap about this team when they lose even a single game. Listen to some of the local radio shows after one of the horrendous losses we've had this year and you'll understand. Don't come in here with that stuff.
-
I see. I can reply but I can't bring certain points to the conversation. So this is what it's like arguing with a 5 year old. :rolleyes:
So we take a valid point, that practicing does not prepare a player for the actual speed of an NFL game and we take it to its absurd extreme. Again, arguing with a 5 year old.
You missed my entire point THAT IT DOES prepare you for the game. And yes you can never actually simulate gamespeed but its the best you can do ontop of a good 2-3 seasons of pre-season and garabage time play. Rodgers played sparingly during those years and look at how he turned out. He's probably the best QB in the game right now and has taken 4-5 years less worth of hits than some of the other QB's in the league. Geez its like arguing with a wall.
This all depends on draft order. However, no way Barkley slips past Miami, Seattle and Washington. I fully expect there to be at least 3-4 teams in the top 10 that need a QB so no way Barkley makes it out of the top 10, and it's highly unlikely he makes it out of the top 5...imo. And yes, #1 is higher than #2 but I don't see a player staying in school for the sole purpose of rising up one spot on the board. Now if Barkley were projected as a 2nd round pick or later then I could see him staying in school to improve draft position. I don't see him staying in just to rise up 1 draft spot. Again, just my opinion. And this is USC's last year of bowl ineligibility. As of next year they are again eligible for bowl games, including the national championship...hence the reason I said he could come back next year to compete for a national championship.
I didn't say that was the sole purpose. Him staying with USC for his senior year with the talent around that team along with the National Championship implications are the main reasons. I also meant that THIS YEAR they weren't bowl eligible meaning that with next year he'd be more inclinced to stay and play. lrn2read. If he waits and does come out after this year he will be #1 overall. Not the only reason but another reason.
Of course Manning was better in year 2 and 3 than in year 1. However, some players learn from doing and some learn from watching. I would say more learn by actually doing but this is merely conjecture. And it could be considered a waste to draft a QB who's primary selling point is he's ready to start from day 1 (this is what the "experts" say, not me) if we don't need a QB to start from day 1. We can bring in all of the top QB prospects and closely evaluate each one, determine what holes there are in each QBs game and determine which would be the easiest and quickest to correct. If done correctly, we could find the next Rodgers, Brees etc. In doing so, we trade the pick and acquire multiple additional that plug multiple holes and create a young core of talented players plus a great QB prospect that we can build the team around.
I still don't see how it could be a waste. Like I said it would be more of a waste in my mind to draft a QB whom you have to work on rather than a QB who is ready to go. I mean if you want to go ahead and give more picks to this organization whom over the past couple of seasons haven't had the best record with drafting. Especially with all the recent doubt surrounding Chris Polian and his ablity to draft for this team. You mention Rodgers but as this thread title states he actually is all for Luck sitting behind Peyton on the bench for a few seasons and learning the system.
-
I agree to some extent. However, even practices won't prepare the new QB for actually being in the game and we can't count on there being garbage time for the new QB to come in and be able to play. Until the defensive issues are corrected there may not be any garbage time.
Ah this is where the fun begins again. I remember you from another thread. Let's make this one a little bit more fun shall we? So practices won't prepare a QB for being in the game, so why practice then right? Why take a shower if you are gonna get dirty anyway? Why brush your teeth if your just gonna get food in them anway? Same mantra here.
There is no speculation as of now as to whether Barkley will or won't declare for the 2012 draft. However, I don't see him staying in school for the sole purpose of raising his draft position because he's already projected to be the #2 overall pick, or at least the 2nd QB taken in the draft. If he stays in school it would be to either finish his degree or to have a chance to compete for a national championship next year.
Actually, outside of Miami taking him after the Colts in theory take Luck, he falls into the teens in a lot of draft boards. They can't compete for a national championship since they are still on probation but he could go #1 overall next year. And in the game of numbers #1 is higher than say even #2 this year.
Also, I think that perhaps you might be misunderstanding what is meant by being pro-ready. The hype about Luck is because the pundits say there are no holes in his game. They say there are no issues with his mechanics nor with his intangibles and that's why he's the most pro-ready QB since Elway or Manning. According to the hype, there's no reason for Luck to not be starting from day 1 other than if he's drafted by a team who already has a starting QB. That's why many feel it would be a waste to draft him if Manning is ready to go because there are plenty of QBs in the coming draft class that can make all of the NFL throws but simply need some minor corrections to their mechanics or what not in order to be ready to start in the pros.
I think you might be right in that sense but the problem is NO QB ever to come is fully prepared from day 1. We went over this in a few other threads already so I hate to repeat myself with you. Peyton Manning in year 2 and 3 was better than in year 1 was he not? Why would be a waste? If anything I'd consider drafting a QB whom you have to develop to be more risky and possibly more of a "waste" considering there are things there that need to be worked on. Don't bring up the trade for more picks because we've already gone over this. Basic arguement is that it could actually cost more money than just taking Luck and not get enough good players onto the field quick enough to make an impact in the Manning era. Don't bring your mock draft board with your "hand selected" players that we and everybody elses knows Polian won't draft either.
-
I remember Eli (I think) saying the same thing. Sitting behind the starter and learning was nice, but it won't prepare you for the actual game when you are in there going at full speed
Of course you can never simulate gamespeed till you are actually in the game. I'd expect him to get plenty of playing in pre-season and in garbage time at the end of games as well. Who knows maybe we are in a position like 09 where we can rest starters and he really gets a chance to come in and play. Never know.
What about other QBs? I've heard there are lots of talented QBs in this draft. Luck is just considered the most pro-ready, but we don't necessarily need a guy who is pro-ready now to step in and play if Peyton is healthy. What about drafting a guy like Barkley and letting him learn from Peyton? For the record, I don't necessarily believe we should pass up on Luck, I am just playing Devil's advocate
Barkley is not even projected to come out this year. USC has a lot of talent around Barkley that is just now being developed and his position could be higher in the draft next year if he waits. I think you might have a little bit mis-understanding of the term "pro-ready". Pro-ready means he can make all or most of throws and all, if not most of the reads a NFL QB has to make. From that point, you would work on developing his mechanics in the pocket and on some of the intangibles that would come from a few off-seasons in league along with learning the immense playbook that nearly every player in this offense said it took 3 years to fully grasp.
You can practice, watch film and learn from the best all you want. But until you are on the field actually playing football then the only thing you are learning are the X's and O's. and for the record this is nothing like the favre to rodgers situation. The packers werent threatening to go 0-16 before drafting him. Regardless who is at QB this team wont be a contender until we have something that at least resembles a defense. Even Peyton Manning cant do it, so why risk it on the chance that Luck might be as good as Manning, if the real Manning cant do it then what makes everyone think Luck can? Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Big Ben all SB winning QBs... None of them where the next Manning.
How is it nothing like Favre and Rodgers situation? Myself and others see a LOT of similarities. Yes our records are different but that has nothing to do with the four players being compared. I agree we need to rebuild this team pretty much from the defense on up and hopefully this draft and off-season changes allows us to do that. We still would have about another 3-4 years before Luck would take over anyway so lets not jump to conclusions about how bad we are gonna be then. No one is saying he is the next Peyton, but the notion is that he is the QB most similar in skillset to come out of college since Peyton.
-
I agree with him. But with that said, having any QB sit and learn behind Peyton (or any veteran QB in the league, for that matter) would be invaluable experience. Heck, even if I got the chance to do that for a year, I would be ecstatic...and I am nowhere near an NFL-level QB.
Right? So why not bring the kid in and let him sit behind Peyton a few seasons? To me this would be like Favre-Rodgers 2.0 with Peyton actually trying to teach Luck the system.
-
http://www.nfl.com/n..._headline_stack
I find this to be interesting considering that a lot of people on here seem to think sitting is NOT the way to go with Luck. Take it from arguably the best QB playing right now and sit Luck. Let him learn the system for a few years behind Peyton and then come in and play.
"Peyton is obviously one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, and for Andrew coming in -- who everybody is saying is going to be one of the most NFL-ready players ever -- if he's able to be fine with sitting behind Peyton for a couple years, I think it'd be invaluable," Rodgers told ESPN Radio's "Mike & Mike" show Wednesday.
-
I also don't understand why this concept is sooo hard for some to comprehend
Because people don't want to see it workout that way. They want some sort of major move
to happen so they can have a reason to whine and complain.people dont understand that this fanbase is very fical and some would rather see this team fail so they can say I told you so.
-
I'm honestly shocked at some of the opinions people have in this thread.
This is how its going to play out.
Manning comes back healthy for the next 2-3 seasons. Luck sits behind Peyton those few seasons and eventually takes the reigns when Peyton goes. Polian has stated that Peyton is fine with this and Luck has shown the maturity as a player that he'd be fine with it as well. QB's coming out of college would be drooling at the chance to learn from the greatest of all-time. And don't say that players drafted that high want to play right away. Carson Palmer was drafted #1 and sat for a good part of his 1st year behind Kitna with the Bengals.
lol
2012 Colts Mock Draft
in NFL Draft, Scouting, and Free Agent Talk
Posted